|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
A Twist on the Consent Age Question.
I live and work in New York City, where the age of consent is 18. Across the River in New Jersey the age of consent is 16 ½. I have a shoot for a client with a 17 years old model on location in New Jersey. I am not sure if the model will have her parents there. Can I do the shoot without having a parental consent form signed? Is it were my studio located that determines the age of consent or the location of the shoot? Should I just play it safe and insist on having a parental consent form signed? Looking forward to your opinions. [edit] No! I am not planning on having sex with the model nor am I planning on taking any nude photos. It is a paid client shoot. May 16 06 07:14 pm Link photography is not an age of consent question...you're not having sex with the girl. That being said, contracts are not valid with anyone under the age of 18, but assuming you are getting paid by the client, that is the client's problem. May 16 06 07:53 pm Link James Jackson wrote: James is correct but a bit vague. May 16 06 08:17 pm Link NewBoldPhoto wrote: I'm not a lawyer, but this advise sounds very good to me! May 16 06 08:54 pm Link Are you taking her photos or boffing her? If you are taking photos of her, clothed, then the age of consent question is irrelevant. Although if she signs a model release, the release would be voidable by her. Age of consent has nothing to do with engaging in contracts. If you are having sex with her, then get the f*ck off this photography forum. If you are contemplating photographing her nude, then the age of consent law is still irrelevant. Age of consent pertains to consentual sex between two people. Even if both of your ages allow you to engage in sex, it is still likely to violate child pornography laws if you photograph her nude. May 16 06 11:58 pm Link Thanks for all of you who gave me advice and for all of you who made me laugh this morning. No! I am not planning on having sex with the model nor am I planning on taking any nude photos. It is a paid client shoot. I was wrong to use Consent Age. I should have used the age were one can enter into a legally binding contract. Still I think it is the same age, am I wrong? In any case, I will play it safe and ask for a legal guardian. I am sure I can say it is the client problem, but lawyers (and as you say NJ has tons of them) tends to go after everyone. So playing it safe is the order of the day. What the age were one can enter into a legally binding contract in NJ does anyone know? Also what is the age were one is not consider a minor? May 17 06 09:02 am Link Age of Consent is the earliest age at which the folks can legally marry with parental consent. It doesnt allow for sex at all. For example say Alabama its either 13 or 14 years for the age of consent, A guy could marry a 14 year old legally in that start, tho could not legally have sex with her until she was least either 17 or 18. There was a trial a while back where a guy got arrested for lewd acts against a minor and what not, they got married, and was still having sex with her, I think he ended up being sentenced 18 months or longer for it. But back to the point, the age of consent doesnt apply to photography or contracts and such, its a marriage thing. (Least I Think it is, every state is different.) But if you are shooting with a minor, why even try to fudge around the possible laws, go with what you know for sure, which is that anyone under 18 is a minor and you should have parents present or permission, Period. May 17 06 09:12 am Link radar wrote: I believe in all states ( because its a federal status, and excluding and religious perspective of it ) , when someone hits the age of 18 they are then considered legally an adult. May 17 06 09:19 am Link The age of consent is a semi-senseless thing that varies (and is split into various degrees, depending on exact type of activity, past history, age of partner, etc., ad naseum) by state and country. http://www.ageofconsent.com/ is the best source). The so-called "legal age" for nude modeling is entirely based on contract law, and has nothing to do with morality whatsoever. After Hugh Hefner ended up in court charged with contributing to the deliquency of a minor -Playmate Elizabeth Ann Roberts 1958, who was 16, and had her mother's permission AND her mother present at the shoot. Her mother was also charged. Hef eventually escaped by claiming he thought Roberts was 18 because she was in college. Absurd, since her mother was right there and charged with the same crime. Did Robert's mother claim she forgot her daughter's age?? Detailed info: http://www.simslaw.com/model/model_releases.htm After that, it was decided by Playboy (and followed by basically everyone else in North America) that nude modeling was only for legal adults, who could sign legally binding model releases. The child pornography laws have all followed on this basic model. By extension, all modeling work with a minor has this Achilles' heel. Essentially, a minor can change her mind about any pictures you take of her, and can't be held to any contract- but her parents can. The best example would be Gary Gross, whose right to continue to publish his nude pics of Brooke Shields (taken when she was 10, with her mother's presence and permission) was upheld in a court ruling in 1983). Then Richard Prince used them as his own art (following his annoying leech-like career trend) and they became even more notorious. He calls it Spiritual America, and you can read his moronic drivel about it here: http://www.richardprinceart.com/write_spiritual.html But I digress. Do NOT shoot this girl without a parent or guardian present, and make them sign the model release next to their daughter. Be sensible, please. May 17 06 09:37 am Link Karl Blessing wrote: The age of consent in Al is 16, not 13 or 14! Not sure about the marriage age maybe 14, but I'm pretty sure they need to have parental permission. Don't know if they fixed the no sex for under 16 even if their married stuff. May 17 06 09:39 am Link Thanks for all.... Definitely going to play it safe. May 17 06 09:45 am Link Ok, obviously all these people recommending you *must* have a parent or legal guardian present have never shot for a portrait company even had their kid's school portraits taken. I'm still young enough to remember being herded in to a line and in to photo booths by name in the gym...no legal guardians to be seen. It really is the client's problem and while I'd say sending them a letter/email or documenting a call in which you suggest they have the parent/legal guardian present is in order, *demanding* such is out of line for a photographer to a client. If they're paying you it is not your liability or legal headache. Just as Hef and the mom's mother got sued, you'll notice the photographer's name isn't on that suit...because s/he was getting paid by Hef. May 17 06 09:45 am Link Working for a client doesn't absolve you of any blame if the pictures were considered objectionable- Hef was sued for publishing the photos, and because he had money and fame. The photographer could just as easily have been sued, regardless of why he took the pics. As for the school pics, that has nothing to do with a freelance photographer using his studio. While a child is at school the school itself has legal guardian rights, for most purposes. And a portrait photographer is taking standard headshots, so unless he puts his hands on the models, he's got nothing to worry about- and it's usually a public situation with lots of people around. My main concern is that he doesn't concretely own the right to publish the pictures- and neither does his client- unless a guardian signs the model release. He doesn't say if she's with an agency or not, or if she's provided by a client. That might change things, but if it's a model he independently found, it's his concern. 99% of the time, it would never be an issue, of course- just like 99% of the time, you don't actually NEED a model release for anything. But if you do end up needing it, you want it to be valid, right? May 17 06 11:19 am Link James Jackson wrote: I think being herded in a long line in a school setting, quite possibly a gym or something is alot more of a public place than say a privatly owned studio by a private citizen. Its a matter of covering your ass. Also if you ever had a school taking artistic nudes of all the kids at the school lined up in herds, theres a serious problem. May 17 06 11:34 am Link |
